Everyone agrees that the level of English among employees in France is penalising for their companies. A study on English proficiency, conducted by Education First, even ranks France in 29th and last position among European countries. The Harvard Business Review establishes a flagrant correlation between improved English skills and increased profits generated in international trade.
Companies That Say NO
In many countries, companies do not provide English training: in Asia, the Middle East, and the vast majority of South American countries. They simply consider that for a role requiring English proficiency, they will only hire an employee who already has the required level.
According to ALTE*, it takes no less than 400 hours of training for an employee to progress from a B1 level (intermediate) to a C1 level (operational). When you know that an employee will only stay a few years with the same company, there is a high risk that the expensive training you finance will benefit another company… when the employee finally becomes operational.
*ALTE: Association of Language Testers in Europe is the reference for language level scales in Europe.
In other words, if we rely on ALTE, the courses regularly set up in companies that provide 20 to 40 hours of English training per year per employee will only allow them to progress by 2 to 4%.
Viewed from this angle, training in English is particularly thankless, and we better understand why training organisations prefer to talk about the number of training hours rather than progression in percentage.
Thus, many companies are resigned and no longer have many illusions: they continue to train in English because it satisfies employees’ expectations, but they don’t hold much hope for concrete benefits on the company’s productivity. It is then no longer a matter of real training with a result objective. Moreover, more and more companies are offering self-service English courses (most often in e-learning) accessible to all employees.
Are the Figures Given by ALTE Reliable?
Unfortunately, we think they are for various reasons that we address in the article “How many hours of training to reach an ‘operational’ level in English? For what budget?”
But the good news is that not all learning methods are equal when it comes to progress made.
Thus, between on the one hand, learning methods applied invariably for decades by traditional language schools and on the other hand those of providers implementing the fruit of research in cognitive sciences, the training time is, neither more nor less, divided by 4. TOEIC® tests in support! We then go from 400 hours of training to 100 hours. And this obviously changes the game: the budget is 4 times lower, and the training duration, reduced accordingly, becomes compatible with the number of years the employee will stay with the company.
Which Employees Should Really Be Trained in English in a Rapid ROI Approach?
In principle, the company’s priority is to improve its competitiveness in international exchanges to obtain higher profits internationally.
From this perspective, we distinguish two populations to train as a priority.
Level Penalising for the Company but Close to an Operational Level
Training all employees whose level is too low or all those who express the need indiscriminately does not make sense in a rapid ROI approach. Because many of them will not reach the “operational” level in their profession even with a reasonable number of training hours before they leave your company.
Therefore, priority should be given to training:
- Employees for whom poor English proficiency is penalising for the company
- Those who have a current level 1 or 2 steps away from the target level (on the ALTE scale which has 6), thus allowing a training of 6 months to 1 year (for example 40 hours in Digital Learning and 20 hours in individual courses) to make them operational in their functions.
By “operational” level, we mean “useful” level. It differs according to the profession exercised by the employee and the frequency of exposure to English. Note: many employees had a correct level in English but lost it. These benefit fully from a refresher course. Automatisms are quickly lost when not practiced, but fortunately, they come back just as quickly with about twenty hours of training.
Operational General Level but Weak in Professional English
Finally, English training is also relevant for employees who have an operational general English level in everyday life but who lack professional vocabulary to be really comfortable in their functions:
- English of the company’s sector of activity,
- English of their profession,
- English specific to the activities during which they use English: conference calls, presentations, negotiation, etc.
Investing in these two types of population is an effective and relevant way for the company to make considerable savings and to have a real approach of direct return on investment in a reduced time frame.
An Alternative: Massive English Training
Companies that do not have the purely ROI approach mentioned above perceive many strategic benefits in making English courses available to all their employees. I now propose to review them.
Map the Needs and Levels of the Company
Making English training accessible to all employees is an excellent way to have a quick and accurate audit of English levels. After this massive and global assessment, you will then be free to choose which populations continue their learning.
Moreover, some formulas allow, via an individual survey, to determine to what extent the employee is exposed to English and the impact of their proficiency in their work. The processing of responses is automated and almost instantaneous. It is therefore a unique opportunity for the company to carry out, at lower cost, a true mapping of the needs and English levels of different populations.
Enhance Company Attractiveness and Retain Employees
Finding and retaining the best talent is regularly cited as the first concern of HR Directors. Competition is fierce to attract the best. Offering attractive training increases the company’s attractiveness and helps retain the talent held. We then speak of investment in talent.
Generations Y and Millennials are particularly sensitive to this argument. According to a study, 42% of “millennials” believe they could leave their company if it does not offer them training that will help them evolve.
Enhance the Employer Brand
The collateral benefit of training is the strengthening of the employer brand. Companies that train their employees enhance their image by offering solutions adapted to the needs of their employees. In two words, they take care of their employees and this is known.
Internationalise Teams and Prepare Them for the Virtualisation of Their Work
Within the different entities of large groups, we see more and more permutations of employees from one country to another. Training helps increase the employability of employees and the number of opportunities to occupy another position.
In the age of virtual offices, employees are increasingly mobile. Learning English improves their mobility.
Break Down Borders for Talent Recruitment
When English proficiency is good within a group, borders fall more easily for talent recruitment. One no longer limits searches to a territory but targets the best skills around the world. The company then gains in competitiveness and multiplies internal opportunities for international careers.
This type of training is then no longer reserved for a privileged few but made available to as many as possible. For budgetary reasons, these trainings favour Digital Learning in the form of a universal licence, to the detriment of individual courses (much more expensive). The result will depend on the capacity of the chosen digital formula to stimulate the motivation of employees and to train them effectively.
Two Very Distinct Types of Training
In conclusion, we can distinguish two types of English training with a strategic character for the company.
Training Responding to a Global HR Policy of the Company
We find these more and more in large groups that offer “online” English courses with free access. The benefits are multiple and capital but difficult to quantify, including:
- mapping English levels and company needs,
- enhancing the employer brand, the company’s image,
- attracting the best talent, retaining employees and increasing their employability,
- promoting the internationalisation of teams and preparing them for the virtualisation of their work,
- breaking down borders for talent recruitment.
English Training Aimed at Obtaining a Concrete ROI
This involves making operational those employees for whom poor English proficiency is penalising for the company. If the current level of employees is at minimum “intermediate” (B1), then, with a reasonable number of hours and budget, the company should train them to make them operational (C1) because the ROI will follow.
Training providers in principle cover these two needs. However, most actors, particularly traditional language schools, suffer from three handicaps:
- they do not have the tools to help companies identify employees who most need English for the proper exercise of their functions (they limit themselves to assessing the level),
- they use non-optimised learning methods that multiply by 4 the number of hours needed and thus make the objective financially unattainable,
- consequence: they do not have an ROI logic (or struggle to prove the ROI).
